signalmankenneth
Verified User
Any questions???
Donald Trump's Muslim travel ban analysis at a glance?!!
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
Any questions???
Pappy Jones
Verified User
So far he's just using the same list that Obama did, I wouldn't be surprised if more countries were added in the future.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
Why are you such an enthusiastic marxist fuckstick?
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
Blackwater?
Buckly J. Ewer
Racism Whistleblower
It is clear that Trump business associations are the criteria for his ban list not the security of the American people...
It's kind of obvious...
It's kind of obvious...
It is clear that Trump business associations are the criteria for his ban list not the security of the American people...
It's kind of obvious...
The Trump administration insists that it's not a ban on Muslims.
BUT !!
Republican presidential nominee advocated (perhaps the term "campaign promise" is more accurate) a religious test in U.S. immigration policy; to indefinitely suspend all Muslim immigration -until we figure out what the %$#@ is going on!-
So it seems one of two things is true.
a) Either the Trump administration is lying, and the mesh of the nations chosen with Islam is merely a SPECTACULAR coincidence. Or
b) They're telling the truth, and Trump is breaking his campaign promise to do so.
It's not easy to find an up-side here.
The obvious question from here; what if anything will the Trumpettes do to slap some lipstick on this pig; and how long will they delay before they do?
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Was Obama lying when he said he'd close Gitmo and never did?
I don't think many Trump supporters care [outside of the far right backwaters] that Trump 'broke' a campaign promise to ban all Muslims; basically, because the point behind the ban wasn't rank anti-Muslim discrimination.
The point is to prevent jihadists from entering the country from terrorist hotbeds.
Supposing it was an actual Muslim ban [its not lol] the constitutional angle would be an interesting test, since foreigners aren't protected from discrimination by the government. Also, the president has power under the law to restrict immigration for ANY reason he deems fit.
As you know, your concentration-camp-loving chums stopped him closing the stinkhole. Are you really so stupid that you think those driven out of their country by jihadists are jihadists? You must be a real Republican. All racists have always believed in keeping furriners out - it goes with being thickoes. Bugger off to wherever your ancestors come from then, if anyone'll have you!
The standard definition of "lying" embodies the concept of deliberate deceit; and intention to promise one thing, but do another.
"Was Obama lying when he said he'd close Gitmo and never did?" DO #8
No.
By that most standard meaning, I don't think so. Do you?
It costs about ten times as much per prisoner to hold Gitmo detainees, as it would to hold the same persons prisoner in a Stateside facility.
True to form Republicans aren't interested in knocking 90% off the cost of a needlessly costly U.S. federal spending program. It's President Obama, the Democrat that wanted to slash that category of federal spending to a fraction. He was blocked by REPUBLICANS in congress.
"I don't think many Trump supporters care [outside of the far right backwaters] that Trump 'broke' a campaign promise to ban all Muslims;"
Even if you're right it's immaterial.
The criterion of Trump integrity is not whether his supporters care. The criterion is validity, truth to his word.
"basically, because the point behind the ban wasn't rank anti-Muslim discrimination."
Yes it was.
And we know for a FACT that it was, because he said it was. Candidate Trump's suggestion / campaign promise was an indefinite suspension of all Muslims "until we can figure out what the Hell is going on!"
YOU claim it wasn't discrimination against Muslims. Trump said otherwise; even if he's draped a fig-leaf over it since then. Now it's not against Muslims. Instead it's 100% against Muslim majority countries.
"The point is to prevent jihadists from entering the country from terrorist hotbeds."
Which Obama did successfully for 8 years, without the kind of enemy-making gesticulations Trump has made his first month in office.
"Was Obama lying when he said he'd close Gitmo and never did?" DO #8
No.
By that most standard meaning, I don't think so. Do you?
It costs about ten times as much per prisoner to hold Gitmo detainees, as it would to hold the same persons prisoner in a Stateside facility.
True to form Republicans aren't interested in knocking 90% off the cost of a needlessly costly U.S. federal spending program. It's President Obama, the Democrat that wanted to slash that category of federal spending to a fraction. He was blocked by REPUBLICANS in congress.
"I don't think many Trump supporters care [outside of the far right backwaters] that Trump 'broke' a campaign promise to ban all Muslims;"
Even if you're right it's immaterial.
The criterion of Trump integrity is not whether his supporters care. The criterion is validity, truth to his word.
"basically, because the point behind the ban wasn't rank anti-Muslim discrimination."
Yes it was.
And we know for a FACT that it was, because he said it was. Candidate Trump's suggestion / campaign promise was an indefinite suspension of all Muslims "until we can figure out what the Hell is going on!"
YOU claim it wasn't discrimination against Muslims. Trump said otherwise; even if he's draped a fig-leaf over it since then. Now it's not against Muslims. Instead it's 100% against Muslim majority countries.
"The point is to prevent jihadists from entering the country from terrorist hotbeds."
Which Obama did successfully for 8 years, without the kind of enemy-making gesticulations Trump has made his first month in office.
It costs about ten times as much per prisoner to hold Gitmo detainees, as it would to hold the same persons prisoner in a Stateside facility.??
How do you arrive at this data ?....Sailors and Marines have been stationed at Gitmo for decades and will be for the foreseeable future whether detainees
are their or not....or they will be stationed somewhere else at the same costs to the US.....
The detainees will eat and receive medical care whether its in Gitmo or stateside, so that cost will still be there....it makes no difference where they are....
How do you arrive at this data ?....Sailors and Marines have been stationed at Gitmo for decades and will be for the foreseeable future whether detainees
are their or not....or they will be stationed somewhere else at the same costs to the US.....
The detainees will eat and receive medical care whether its in Gitmo or stateside, so that cost will still be there....it makes no difference where they are....
"How do you arrive at this data ?" N #12
Reading.
The most recent report I've read on it, which may have been as recent as this year, reported it costs the U.S. tax payer $1.3 $Million per Gitmo detainee per year.
You're more than welcome to post contradictory report from credible source.
Meanwhile even in a SHU, the ultra-security prisons we have (from which no one has escaped, so far, to my knowledge) the per prisoner per year cost is nowhere near $130K.
"Sailors and Marines have been stationed at Gitmo for decades"
a) Dandy.
b) Irrelevant.
c) It's not how many troops we have there, but instead it's
- which Military Occupational Specialties they have, and
- what they spend their time there doing.
If our U.S. military personnel there are monitoring Cuban radio, and
manning radar scopes for suspicious anomalies,
that's one thing.
But if their time is consumed by:
- applying and removing handcuffs and ankle restraints
- shepherding detainees from sleeping quarters to mess facility to recreation area,
- and then back to sleeping quarters
- performing health and welfare inspections
- guarding the detainees to prevent escape
- checking and maintaining the security & other facilities
then how is that a benefit to the tax payer?
Look:
I get it.
You're not smart enough to understand it's better for the U.S. tax payer to pay ~$35K per detainee, than $1.3 $Million. That's fine.
But if you ever graduate 1st grade a whole new world of simple arithmetic, including both addition and subtraction will blossom for you. It would transform your world (if you can meet the stringent academic entrance requirements).
"The detainees will eat and receive medical care whether its in Gitmo or stateside, so that cost will still be there....it makes no difference where they are...."
So one might ignorantly presume.
But according to what I've read, it costs the U.S. military about a $million $dollars per year per troop to occupy Afghanistan.
It's simply vastly more expensive to resupply them there, etc.
We could keep the troops we now have in Afghanistan at Bragg, or Norfolk, again for roughly one tenth the cost of keeping them in Afghanistan. DO NOT take my word for it. Google it, if you're not scared of actually learning something.
And btw:
if one could live as cheaply and comfortably away from home as they do while they're at home; don't you think a lot more people would be traveling?
Reading.
The most recent report I've read on it, which may have been as recent as this year, reported it costs the U.S. tax payer $1.3 $Million per Gitmo detainee per year.
You're more than welcome to post contradictory report from credible source.
Meanwhile even in a SHU, the ultra-security prisons we have (from which no one has escaped, so far, to my knowledge) the per prisoner per year cost is nowhere near $130K.
"Sailors and Marines have been stationed at Gitmo for decades"
a) Dandy.
b) Irrelevant.
c) It's not how many troops we have there, but instead it's
- which Military Occupational Specialties they have, and
- what they spend their time there doing.
If our U.S. military personnel there are monitoring Cuban radio, and
manning radar scopes for suspicious anomalies,
that's one thing.
But if their time is consumed by:
- applying and removing handcuffs and ankle restraints
- shepherding detainees from sleeping quarters to mess facility to recreation area,
- and then back to sleeping quarters
- performing health and welfare inspections
- guarding the detainees to prevent escape
- checking and maintaining the security & other facilities
then how is that a benefit to the tax payer?
Look:
I get it.
You're not smart enough to understand it's better for the U.S. tax payer to pay ~$35K per detainee, than $1.3 $Million. That's fine.
But if you ever graduate 1st grade a whole new world of simple arithmetic, including both addition and subtraction will blossom for you. It would transform your world (if you can meet the stringent academic entrance requirements).
"The detainees will eat and receive medical care whether its in Gitmo or stateside, so that cost will still be there....it makes no difference where they are...."
So one might ignorantly presume.
But according to what I've read, it costs the U.S. military about a $million $dollars per year per troop to occupy Afghanistan.
It's simply vastly more expensive to resupply them there, etc.
We could keep the troops we now have in Afghanistan at Bragg, or Norfolk, again for roughly one tenth the cost of keeping them in Afghanistan. DO NOT take my word for it. Google it, if you're not scared of actually learning something.
And btw:
if one could live as cheaply and comfortably away from home as they do while they're at home; don't you think a lot more people would be traveling?
"Of course it isn't a ban on Muslims. That's just stupid. There are 22 majority Muslim countries, if he was banning Muslims there would be 22 countries on the list not 7." D #14
Not necessarily.
Was Tim McVeigh a Christian? Did the president ban Christian immigration after the Murrah Federal Building came down?
Of course it isn't a ban on Muslims.
The scientific way to analyze this is:
a) What is the ratio of Muslims to non-Muslims outside the U.S. (presuming people don't immigrate to the U.S. from the U.S.)
The stats I've read indicate they're a minority, ~1.3 billion out of about 7.4 billion human population. Less than 18% of the population?
b) What is the ratio of Muslims to non-Muslims in the 7 nations Trump included in this controversial action? The press reports they're majority Muslim. That means over 50%. I suspect a few may be over 80%.
Of course it isn't a ban on Muslims.
Not exclusively Muslims. But disproportionately so; thus the observation.
"That's just stupid. There are 22 majority Muslim countries, if he was banning Muslims there would be 22 countries on the list not 7."
So Jim Crow laws didn't discriminate against Blacks, because there were some in Africa that weren't affected by them?
Hilarious.
It discriminates against mostly Muslims. If it didn't then the stat should be closer to 18%, not 80%.
Not necessarily.
Was Tim McVeigh a Christian? Did the president ban Christian immigration after the Murrah Federal Building came down?
Of course it isn't a ban on Muslims.
The scientific way to analyze this is:
a) What is the ratio of Muslims to non-Muslims outside the U.S. (presuming people don't immigrate to the U.S. from the U.S.)
The stats I've read indicate they're a minority, ~1.3 billion out of about 7.4 billion human population. Less than 18% of the population?
b) What is the ratio of Muslims to non-Muslims in the 7 nations Trump included in this controversial action? The press reports they're majority Muslim. That means over 50%. I suspect a few may be over 80%.
Of course it isn't a ban on Muslims.
"That's just stupid. There are 22 majority Muslim countries, if he was banning Muslims there would be 22 countries on the list not 7."
So Jim Crow laws didn't discriminate against Blacks, because there were some in Africa that weren't affected by them?
Hilarious.
It discriminates against mostly Muslims. If it didn't then the stat should be closer to 18%, not 80%.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Melania is being abused
Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
Nostradumbarse is a colossal cockgoblinIt is clear that Trump business associations are the criteria for his ban list not the security of the American people...
It's kind of obvious...
Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
Cancel 2018.2
Oh, hi
Might as well be.
Any questions???
Now the truth as compared to the communist propaganda just pasted by the communist party USA.
Truth: Those 7 nations were not picked randomly.....they are the 7 nations that Soetoro targeted as nations of terrorist concern. The only difference....Soetoro still allowed them access into the US void of any ability to properly screen them...by 'suggesting' they get a green card, that way....he retains plausible deniability when the next Ohio State attack occurs. Does a green card prevent a terrorist from being a terrorist? Just ask...the ft. Hood terrorist Nidal Hasan within the ranks of the US MILITARY....a natural born Citizen.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/obama-imposed-curbs-on-nations-targeted-by-trump
Last edited:
Speaking of being stupid...what kind of genius does it take to realize that when a nation is occupied by Muslims that nation is a Muslim nation by nature, but still that does not constitute a ban on Religion. I find it funny that one day the lunatic left demands that no religious test be applied...and the next day they use a religious test to incorrectly label a restriction on terrorism as a ban on the religion of ISLAM. Funny as hell...they are running around like chicken little.
What's next? Is the left going to state that this administration is a Racist Bigoted administration because they have restricted immigration from certain African nations...that are predominately populated by Blacks? LMAO